The Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last month agreed with a trial court determination that an arbitration award should be overturned because of the "evident partiality" of one of the arbitrators. It's straightforward, but it's also an infrequent occurrence. Courts under the Federal Arbitration Act have limited reasons for overturning awards. Case law delineating the FAA's evident partiality standard means that only extreme conduct will get awards stricken. Thomas Kinkade Co. v. White, No. 10-1634 (6th Cir. April 2, 2013)(available at http://l.usa. gov/16jnWic) will be the new poster child for Extreme Evident Partiality. The case involves a company formerly owned by a scandal-plagued celebrity artist who was not a stranger to charges of sharp business practices and angry vendor-partner arbitrations. The artist faced what appears to have been a scorched-earth ADR strategy by adversaries who, in the courts' recounting, had no problem gaming the system to produce a seven-figure award in a case under the auspices of the American Arbitration Association.
展开▼
机译：上个月，美国第六巡回上诉法院同意了初审法院的裁决，即由于其中一名仲裁员的“明显偏见”，应撤销仲裁裁决。这很简单，但也很少出现。根据《联邦仲裁法》，法院推翻裁决的理由有限。描述美国联邦航空局明显的偏见标准的判例法意味着，只有极端行为才能获得奖励。 Thomas Kinkade Co.诉怀特案，第10-1634号案（2013年4月2日，第六届）（可在http：//l.usa。gov / 16jnWic获得）将成为极端证据偏爱的新标语。该案涉及一家公司，该公司原先是一家丑闻缠身的名人艺术家所拥有，而他对严厉的商业行为和愤怒的卖方-合伙人仲裁的指控并不陌生。这位艺术家面对的对手似乎是焦头烂额的ADR策略，在法庭重述中，在美国仲裁协会（American Arbitration Association）主持的一宗案件中，该游戏毫无争议地通过游戏系统产生了七位数的裁决。
展开▼
